explain what, why, how of this change (what changed, why changed, how to propagate this change). # e.g.1 Analysis of Your "Updated First Movement" (from [[🎹🎼🎶scale_harmony_melody_verse]]) Your changes to the first movement are sharp and add significant theoretical depth. - **What changed?** 1. **Line 1:** You refined the definition of degeneracy (`🟪A0`) from a general statement to a core entrepreneurial principle: "pursuing new opportunities under resources currently controlled". Crucially, you reframed different priors (`🟪A1`) and clockspeeds (`🟪A2`) from being the _cause_ of degeneracy to factors that **exacerbate** it. 2. **Line 3:** You replaced the general concept of "intuitive flexibility" (`🟥C0`) with a specific mechanism: **"restricting parameter space on the newsvendor hyperplane"**. - **Why was this changed?** 1. The change to `A0` grounds your paper in established entrepreneurship theory (e.g., Stevenson). It creates a clearer hierarchy: degeneracy is the fundamental state of entrepreneurship, while stakeholder differences are complicating factors within that state. This is a more robust and defensible argument. 2. The change to `C0` makes your core contribution more concrete and powerful. It moves from a vague benefit ("flexibility") to a precise explanation of _how_ your solution works. It provides the "secret sauce." - **How to propagate this change?** 1. **In the Introduction:** Start with this new definition of entrepreneurship as the source of degeneracy. Then, introduce stakeholder priors and clockspeeds as the specific challenges that make navigating this degenerate space so difficult. 2. **In the Methods/Discussion:** Explicitly reference the "newsvendor optimality manifold/hyperplane". Show the equations for this hyperplane (e.g., `q* = 1/βr ln(...)`) and explain that the integrated approach's efficiency comes from moving along this surface directly, rather than guessing its location. [[glo]]